TPP,

I wasn't just a name - there was a whole lot of stuff attached to it...and it didn't seem to be written in a humorous context to me.

I really think Foxy just go caught up in something that rapidly spun out of control when she got in the spat in Cyberia. The thing is that it is easy to begin feeling disaffected, especially if, like her, you normally strive to uphold a certain standard...once you start comparing instances of moderation you will invariably come up with imbalances. They all have to be viewed within the context in which they were doled out. Life isn't always fair and each one of us can take ourselves a tad too seriously at times.

RObert,

Yes, I'd agree. I'm not as skilled in those areas as I'd like to be either.

I think we just have to choose our battles wisely, taking into account the style of the person we are debating. Sometimes we find we are hitting our heads against a brick wall - sometimes we feel we are being provoked. It's at those times that we have to exercise some judgment and control...and sometimes we just have to let things go. Some of our best lines need to be run through our internal censors before we post, just like in everyday life...communicating is one long series of thoughts and edits.

Posted by Deep-Blue, Saturday, 20 November 2010 12:41:31 PM:

"[Deleted. Flaming, revealing identity of children subject to DOCS orders and defamation.]"

Ludwig says, in relation to this event:

"I am pleased to see Graham’s explanation
regarding Deep Blue’s suspension. I didn’t
see the post that was deleted but it certainly
sounds like it deserved to be deleted. ...
But I’m a bit concerned about the writer
being suspended."

As one of the users that reported that post, trust me it did deserve deletion, as any who have used this forum for any length of time would have known. The post threatened to reveal the identities of children the subject of DOCS orders. That was in itself enough. My reporting of the post had nothing to do with any hostility to the views of Deep-Blue: indeed, as a relatively new identity on OLO, I had not formed any opinion as to Deep-Blue's posting style or, if there was one, agenda.

Ludwig's concern as to suspension, whilst understandable in the context of his own relatively recent experience, http://bit.ly/fJK4sp , is in this case misplaced. Deep-Blue's deleted post appeared to me to also be an attempt to penetrate TPP's quite legitimate veil of OLO anonymity, by means of a demand that she dissocciate herself as being the person the subject of certain specific (and defamatory) allegations. Although I made no suggestion to that effect in my reporting of the post, I formed the opinion that the payload of this post may have been laying in wait for TPP since her return to OLO.

A subsequent post of Deep-Blue's on Saturday, 20 November 2010 at 2:06:55 PM, one that remains up in the thread referring to both the allegations and associated demand made of TPP to supposedly 'prove her innocence' with the words "Its a legitimate story that to my knowledge has nothing to do with the pied piper ...", is utterly disingenuous. The allegations were aimed directly at her!

Something else may be afoot here.

In saying "something else may be afoot here", I am expressing an opinion.

Another opinion of mine is that OLO is taking on some of the characteristics of a 'journal of record'.

In circumstances where the influence historically believed to have been wielded by the MSM, and in particular its editorial capacity to keep certain subjects out of public debate, is becoming less, I believe it is unwise to underrate the potential for sites of the nature of OLO to be perceived as a threat by those who might seek to control, or take advantage of, 'public opinion', and thus be targetted for disruption.

Almost without fail, those interested in shutting down public debate on any matter take first resort to attacking the credibility of the messenger.

An incognito messenger brings no balance of credibility to any debate or discussion. Any argument such incognito poster puts up stands or falls according to its own intrinsic merit and/or the quality of references upon which it may depend for its factual bases. OLO provides, through the web, a ready means of bringing to bear, in association with any opinion offerred, the sort of evidence that once was the sole preserve of good investigative journalists. There likely would be some in and around the machinery of government and/or oligopolistic corporatism who greatly resent the opportunities for bringing about transparency that OLO offers.

As a case in point, TPP in the topic 'Policing Potential Service Failures for Profit' has posted what appear to be relevant links, and appears to be making a case, from the perspective of an accredited foster-carer within the system, that is running counter to that of both the NSW government and those parts of the MSM so far giving the subject air. There would be those with a vested interest in shutting her discussion, of necessity conducted in generalities, down.

To dismiss this discussion as to Moderation, Flaming, Off-Topic, and Rules as being of the trivial 'go get a life' sort, whilst it may contain posts of that character, would, in my opinion, be a mistake.

oh..dear..the rot has set in

to quote..poiro..<<I'd agree...I'm not as skilled
in those areas..as I'd like to be either.>>

you have a way with words
please*..dont cry poor
let it flow..if it needs to flow

[only few are reading...and even less remembering...anything is better than silence...[even simply saying its nonsense...and giving

EVEN one reason to support..'it'..being nonsence,..rebuts*..a nonsense

<<I think we just have to choose our battles wisely,>>what rot
there is a reply...and obsession...simply reply
and your point has ben maade...thus can move on

dont avoid others stupidity..[were all fools..idiots...on occasion...only god is perfect]

<<taking into account..the style of the person we are debating.>.

if you recognise..'their style'...moke them back in the same coin
[then move on]

<<Sometimes..we find we are hitting our heads..against a brick wall>>
or just cant stand watching others..*pretend..there is no wall?

<<sometimes we feel we are being provoked.>.
mostly we are...or else why bother posting
we self correct...once we realise...our error

<<sometimes we just have to let things go.>.
but the reason...why..
is often more important...that either..our replie...or ignore
[we can let too much..go]..[and then what have we got?]

<<communicating is one long series..of thoughts..and edits.>
agree...but also its a path..that leads ourselves...and our...br-others..back into the light..or at least..towards..the right path..[for them]..we each have our own learnings/leanings..loves/hates

things..that concern us
or should concern...others
or be of..*no concern...to anyone*

Interesting thoughts, RObert and Poirot.
Being one who does resort to satire at times, I feel I have to defend the practice somewhat. I think Poirot's thoughts here are the most balanced. It's important to remember that all language is rhetorical, and that what we glean from each others posts comes from the whole communication; that is, the context, what's gone before, how we couch it, how we're perceived based on previous post history etc. etc. Anti, above, for instance, refers to me as "the Commie-in-the-Corner", based on his linguistic identikit of Squeers's posts. Thus what Squeers says is not judged merely on merit, but on preconception. That preconception is different from person to person, dependent upon where there sympathies lie, whether the two have clashed before etc. Of course it's true that we all have a bias and don't communicate from some impartial intellectualism. Indeed it could be argued that everything we say is a subjectivised take on the subject matter at hand, which possibly doesn't even exist in objective form..
I'd only add that I try not to use satire aggressively; more defensively or in frustration. Also, I'm not particularly gifted at it either, though it comes more easily than the substantial posts I write. I often labour long trying to craft my thoughts as lucidly as I possibly can. When they're then dismissed out of hand, from wilful ignorance and prejudice, rather than rational engagement, I'm often then moved to take revenge in satire.